Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
0.000...1 is "exactly equal" to 0 according to mainstream math academics.
342 views
Skip to first unread message
Eram semper recta
Jun 28, 2021, 8:33:27 PM6/28/21
to
If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.000...1 (also imagined to be an infinitesimal by many morons).
0.999... = [a_0.999...]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]=1
0.000...1 = [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0
The sum of two Cauchy sequences is another Cauchy sequence whose limit is the sum of the previous two sequences:
[a_0.999...]+[a_0.000...1]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]+[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=1+0=1
Thus, according to mainstream morons, 0.000...1 is not greater than 0 mind you, not less than 0, but exactly equal to 0!
LMAO. The 0.999... Wikipedia entry had some similar bullshit about 0.999... and 1 until I ridiculed them so much, they removed it.
Mainstream math academics are incorrigibly stupid fucks and there is nothing that can be done to fix them:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
0.999... = [a_0.999...]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]=1
0.000...1 = [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0
The sum of two Cauchy sequences is another Cauchy sequence whose limit is the sum of the previous two sequences:
[a_0.999...]+[a_0.000...1]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]+[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=1+0=1
Thus, according to mainstream morons, 0.000...1 is not greater than 0 mind you, not less than 0, but exactly equal to 0!
LMAO. The 0.999... Wikipedia entry had some similar bullshit about 0.999... and 1 until I ridiculed them so much, they removed it.
Mainstream math academics are incorrigibly stupid fucks and there is nothing that can be done to fix them:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
Eram semper recta
Jun 28, 2021, 8:44:52 PM6/28/21
to
As you can see, the dumb bastards of mainstream math academia are telling you that there are two valid representations of zero! Chuckle. They just keep getting dumber, more vile, more dishonest, more fucked up as time goes by....
mitchr...@gmail.com
Jun 28, 2021, 9:00:40 PM6/28/21
to
First calculus was right to suggest they behave the same...
Mitchell Raemsch
Chris M. Thomasson
Jun 28, 2021, 9:42:43 PM6/28/21
to
Dan Christensen
Jun 28, 2021, 9:45:35 PM6/28/21
to
On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 8:33:27 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.000...1 (also imagined to be an infinitesimal by many morons).
>
> 0.999... = [a_0.999...]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]=1
>
I think you mean an infinite geometric series 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ... = 0.9 / (1 - 0.1) = 1
> If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.000...1 (also imagined to be an infinitesimal by many morons).
>
> 0.999... = [a_0.999...]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]=1
>
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series after you complete your GED course.
> [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't become a victim of JG's fake math
JG here claims to have a discovered as shortcut to mastering calculus without using limits. Unfortunately for him, this means he has no workable a definition of the derivative of a function. It blows up for functions as simple f(x)=|x|. Or even f(x)=0. As a result, he has had to ban 0, negative numbers and instantaneous rates of change rendering his goofy little system quite useless. What a moron!
Forget calculus. JG has also banned all axioms because he cannot even derive the most elementary results of basic arithmetic, e.g. 2+2=4. Such results require a few axioms, so he figures he's now off the hook. Again, what a moron!
Even at his advanced age (60+?), John Gabriel is STILL struggling with basic, elementary-school arithmetic. As he has repeatedly posted here:
"There are no points on a line."
--April 12, 2021
"Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
--July 10, 2020
"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017
“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015
"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017
"Zero is not a number."
-- Dec. 2, 2019
"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017
“There is no such thing as an empty set.”
--Oct. 4, 2019
“3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
--Oct. 22, 2019
No math genius our JG, though he actually lists his job title as “mathematician” at Linkedin.com. Apparently, they do not verify your credentials.
Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog a http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Eram semper recta
Jun 29, 2021, 7:44:46 AM6/29/21
to
There is ONLY one rigorous formulation of calculus in human history, the New Calculus:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view
It is free of ALL bullshit concepts such as infinity, infinitesimals and the rot of limit theory.
Sorgio
Jun 29, 2021, 10:17:28 AM6/29/21
to
On 6/28/2021 5:33 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999..,
Give it a rest you retarded mouthload of Bolivian donkey bottoms.
mitchr...@gmail.com
Jun 29, 2021, 1:12:05 PM6/29/21
to
Infinity is quantity going up forever.
Remember your infinite sequence?
Can you take it back?
Mitchell Raemsch
Eram semper recta
Jun 29, 2021, 7:14:15 PM6/29/21
to
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
Michael Moroney
Jun 29, 2021, 7:32:35 PM6/29/21
to
Greg Cunt
Jun 29, 2021, 8:07:08 PM6/29/21
to
On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 2:44:52 AM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> If you accept [...] concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept [...] concepts such as 0.000...1
Where did you get that nonsense from, dumb?
Just another delusion?
> If you accept [...] concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept [...] concepts such as 0.000...1
Where did you get that nonsense from, dumb?
Just another delusion?
Eram semper recta
Jun 30, 2021, 7:31:09 AM6/30/21
to
Perhaps if you took Real Analysis as part of a uni. math course, you might know.
0.000...1 is a well-formed Cauchy sequence according to the bullshit of mainstream theory.
It is exactly equal to 0.
Shut the fuck up and go away Mr. Cunt.
Greg Cunt
Jun 30, 2021, 12:50:54 PM6/30/21
to
On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 1:31:09 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> 0.000...1 is a well-formed Cauchy sequence according to the bullshit of mainstream theory.
Oh, really?! Can you point out a single source (internet or textbook) to prove your idiotic claim, dumbo?
> 0.000...1 is a well-formed Cauchy sequence according to the bullshit of mainstream theory.
Dave Smith
Jun 30, 2021, 1:06:33 PM6/30/21
to
On 6/30/2021 4:31 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
Shut up idiot.
Shut up idiot.
Peter
Jun 30, 2021, 1:30:45 PM6/30/21
to
Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> 0.000...1 is a well-formed Cauchy sequence according to the bullshit of mainstream theory.
You don't know what a Cauchy sequence is.
>
> 0.000...1 is a well-formed Cauchy sequence according to the bullshit of mainstream theory.
--
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here
Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg
mitchr...@gmail.com
Jun 30, 2021, 1:48:18 PM6/30/21
to
They do share a sameness by being fundamentally
equal. There is more than one equality. It is above
zero infinitesimal difference.
It is the reason for .9 repeating and 1 not being the
same quantity... only infinitely close on a number
line.
Mitchell Raemsch
Eram semper recta
Jun 30, 2021, 2:19:46 PM6/30/21
to
On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 13:30:45 UTC-4, Peter wrote:
> Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> >
> > 0.000...1 is a well-formed Cauchy sequence according to the bullshit of mainstream theory.
> You don't know what a Cauchy sequence is.
Really? Are you saying that 0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ... is not a Cauchy sequence, you stupid fuck?
> Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> >
> > 0.000...1 is a well-formed Cauchy sequence according to the bullshit of mainstream theory.
> You don't know what a Cauchy sequence is.
Greg Cunt
Jun 30, 2021, 2:45:43 PM6/30/21
to
On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:19:46 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Are you saying that (0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...) is not a Cauchy sequence?
Sure it is. The decimal representation for the real number "related" to that Cauchy sequence is
0.000...
You know.
> Are you saying that (0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...) is not a Cauchy sequence?
Sure it is. The decimal representation for the real number "related" to that Cauchy sequence is
0.000...
You know.
mitchr...@gmail.com
Jun 30, 2021, 2:57:29 PM6/30/21
to
On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 5:33:27 PM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept ill-formed
Zero is not a quantity or a physical size.
> If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept ill-formed
After the first real no quantity in calculus
there is the first real fundamental...
Eram semper recta
Jun 30, 2021, 4:55:15 PM6/30/21
to
> 0.000...
Meh. You could write nothing in your radix template and that would represent 0. However, 0.000...1 is just another representation of an infinite decimal expansion, no? Why should every other number have two representations and not the pretend number 0? ROFLMAO.
Why do you hate it so much? You've got no problem with 0.333... and 0.999... being infinite.
LMAO.
>
> You know.
Eram semper recta
Jun 30, 2021, 5:00:29 PM6/30/21
to
0.333... means there is a 3 always following.
0.000...1 means there is a 0 always following.
What's the difference?
You just don't like that "1" there, eh? Is there ANY term in the sequence (0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...) that does not have a "1" in it? Of course not! They ALL have "1" in them. Forever and ever.
LMAO. You pathetic piece of shit.
Chuckle.
>
> LMAO.
>
> >
> > You know.
mitchr...@gmail.com
Jun 30, 2021, 7:44:55 PM6/30/21
to
On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 2:00:29 PM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 16:55:15 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 14:45:43 UTC-4, Greg Cunt wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:19:46 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >
> > > > Are you saying that (0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...) is not a Cauchy sequence?
> > >
> > > Sure it is. The decimal representation for the real number "related" to that Cauchy sequence is
> > Good on you, Mr. Cunt! You finally got one thing right - you know what is a Cauchy sequence! Chuckle.
> >
> > > 0.000...
> >
> > Meh. You could write nothing in your radix template and that would represent 0. However, 0.000...1 is just another representation of an infinite decimal expansion, no? Why should every other number have two representations and not the pretend number 0? ROFLMAO.
> >
> > Why do you hate it so much? You've got no problem with 0.333... and 0.999... being infinite.
> Let me show you from a different perspective.
>
> 0.333... means there is a 3 always following.
> 0.000...1 means there is a 0 always following.
There can be a 1 on the end of .000 repeating.
> On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 16:55:15 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 14:45:43 UTC-4, Greg Cunt wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:19:46 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >
> > > > Are you saying that (0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...) is not a Cauchy sequence?
> > >
> > > Sure it is. The decimal representation for the real number "related" to that Cauchy sequence is
> > Good on you, Mr. Cunt! You finally got one thing right - you know what is a Cauchy sequence! Chuckle.
> >
> > > 0.000...
> >
> > Meh. You could write nothing in your radix template and that would represent 0. However, 0.000...1 is just another representation of an infinite decimal expansion, no? Why should every other number have two representations and not the pretend number 0? ROFLMAO.
> >
> > Why do you hate it so much? You've got no problem with 0.333... and 0.999... being infinite.
> Let me show you from a different perspective.
>
> 0.333... means there is a 3 always following.
> 0.000...1 means there is a 0 always following.
Add that to .999 repeating and you get the next
quantity of the first integer or 1...
Mitchell Raemsch
Chris M. Thomasson
Jun 30, 2021, 7:59:31 PM6/30/21
to
On 6/30/2021 2:00 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 16:55:15 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 14:45:43 UTC-4, Greg Cunt wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:19:46 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are you saying that (0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...) is not a Cauchy sequence?
>>>
>>> Sure it is. The decimal representation for the real number "related" to that Cauchy sequence is
>> Good on you, Mr. Cunt! You finally got one thing right - you know what is a Cauchy sequence! Chuckle.
>>
>>> 0.000...
>>
>> Meh. You could write nothing in your radix template and that would represent 0. However, 0.000...1 is just another representation of an infinite decimal expansion, no? Why should every other number have two representations and not the pretend number 0? ROFLMAO.
>>
>> Why do you hate it so much? You've got no problem with 0.333... and 0.999... being infinite.
>
> Let me show you from a different perspective.
>
> 0.333... means there is a 3 always following.
> 0.000...1 means there is a 0 always following.
Huh? You mean there is always a one on the end of it, right?
> On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 16:55:15 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 14:45:43 UTC-4, Greg Cunt wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:19:46 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are you saying that (0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...) is not a Cauchy sequence?
>>>
>>> Sure it is. The decimal representation for the real number "related" to that Cauchy sequence is
>> Good on you, Mr. Cunt! You finally got one thing right - you know what is a Cauchy sequence! Chuckle.
>>
>>> 0.000...
>>
>> Meh. You could write nothing in your radix template and that would represent 0. However, 0.000...1 is just another representation of an infinite decimal expansion, no? Why should every other number have two representations and not the pretend number 0? ROFLMAO.
>>
>> Why do you hate it so much? You've got no problem with 0.333... and 0.999... being infinite.
>
> Let me show you from a different perspective.
>
> 0.333... means there is a 3 always following.
> 0.000...1 means there is a 0 always following.
.0000001
.00000001
.000000001
...
Greg Cunt
Jun 30, 2021, 8:08:34 PM6/30/21
to
On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 11:00:29 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> 0.000...1 means <bla>
It doesn't mean anything, it's just nonsense made up by you, bird brain.
Btw. I asked for a single source (internet or textbook) to prove your idiotic claim.
You know your claim "0.000...1 is a well-formed Cauchy sequence according to the bullshit of mainstream theory."
> 0.000...1 means <bla>
It doesn't mean anything, it's just nonsense made up by you, bird brain.
Btw. I asked for a single source (internet or textbook) to prove your idiotic claim.
You know your claim "0.000...1 is a well-formed Cauchy sequence according to the bullshit of mainstream theory."
mitchr...@gmail.com
Jun 30, 2021, 9:50:15 PM6/30/21
to
On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 4:59:31 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/30/2021 2:00 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 16:55:15 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 14:45:43 UTC-4, Greg Cunt wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:19:46 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Are you saying that (0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...) is not a Cauchy sequence?
> >>>
> >>> Sure it is. The decimal representation for the real number "related" to that Cauchy sequence is
> >> Good on you, Mr. Cunt! You finally got one thing right - you know what is a Cauchy sequence! Chuckle.
> >>
> >>> 0.000...
> >>
> >> Meh. You could write nothing in your radix template and that would represent 0. However, 0.000...1 is just another representation of an infinite decimal expansion, no? Why should every other number have two representations and not the pretend number 0? ROFLMAO.
> >>
> >> Why do you hate it so much? You've got no problem with 0.333... and 0.999... being infinite.
> >
> > Let me show you from a different perspective.
> >
> > 0.333... means there is a 3 always following.
> > 0.000...1 means there is a 0 always following.
> Huh? You mean there is always a one on the end of it, right?
>
> .0000001
> .00000001
> .000000001
>
> ...
>
If that is zero repeating with a one that is the first quantity in math.
> On 6/30/2021 2:00 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 16:55:15 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 14:45:43 UTC-4, Greg Cunt wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:19:46 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Are you saying that (0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...) is not a Cauchy sequence?
> >>>
> >>> Sure it is. The decimal representation for the real number "related" to that Cauchy sequence is
> >> Good on you, Mr. Cunt! You finally got one thing right - you know what is a Cauchy sequence! Chuckle.
> >>
> >>> 0.000...
> >>
> >> Meh. You could write nothing in your radix template and that would represent 0. However, 0.000...1 is just another representation of an infinite decimal expansion, no? Why should every other number have two representations and not the pretend number 0? ROFLMAO.
> >>
> >> Why do you hate it so much? You've got no problem with 0.333... and 0.999... being infinite.
> >
> > Let me show you from a different perspective.
> >
> > 0.333... means there is a 3 always following.
> > 0.000...1 means there is a 0 always following.
> Huh? You mean there is always a one on the end of it, right?
>
> .0000001
> .00000001
> .000000001
>
> ...
>
Mitchell Raemsch
Peter
Jul 1, 2021, 3:47:07 AM7/1/21
to
FromTheRafters
Jul 1, 2021, 6:18:05 AM7/1/21
to
mitchr...@gmail.com used his or her keyboard to write :
Wrong, because there is no "end" of an endlessly repeating sequence.
Timothy Golden
Jul 1, 2021, 7:47:05 AM7/1/21
to
How many symbols can only be used once and have to come at the end of an expression?
Is the ellipsis one of these? Using it twice does seem meaningless:
0.333...111...
and putting anything after it seems meaningless, which I did above as well.
Is the ellipsis really saying that you have enough information to fill in more of the redundant expression?
Does it imply that the expression must go on forever?
Epsilon/delta analysis always says close enough is good enough.
Abstract algebra insists on an infinitely long polynomial with finitely many nonzero terms why?
This level of stupidity is nearing the regular usage within mathematical journals of the non-negative real numbers; as if the two-signed reals are more fundamental than unsigned numbers. These are problems that some take to like a child takes to candy. These types who so readily adapt to such illogical systems are the best mathematicians, right? According to academia this is certainly the case. Particularly a grand master who can absorb one set of exceptions for one niche within the subject, then another exception mapping on another niche, then translate the two in a foul manner that reads perfectly to each niche; possibly introducing a third exceptional niche along the way so as to breed more room for publication: this is where mathematics is headed under a system of accumulation.
The resolution of course is to teach and accept simplicity as a driving force. When it can be had and done it should be so. Why then should abstract algebra insist on
0.01 + 1.23 x + 0 x x + 0 x x x + ...
when the first two terms alone mean exactly the same thing? It is done to protect the appearance of closure under product. Sadly the same explosion that occurs in powers of x within this product is even happening in the integers and particularly in our computers. When two 16 bit values multiply to become a 32 bit value we do in fact have a problem. We do not have closure in terms of informational conservation other than for the smaller values of say 8 bits. That this size constraint escapes the pure mathematician is of interest as we dig deeper into the puzzle of hidden assumptions.
As I've already challenged the rational value as carrying an operator and two values, and so not being a fundamental construction of number whereby numbers and operators have distinct meanings that do exclude such a method, here I am caught nearly putting my foot in my mouth, because one of the options is to simply preserve the product. If the product of two sixteen bit values can be a 32 bit value then clearly simply keeping the two sixteen bit values is a practical option, even though no actual number crunching is done. Strangely this as well matches the dimensional analysis of physical products which do not conserve units. Typically when we multiply say one meter by three meters we will land with three square meters; another detail that escapes the pure mathematician, yet in this analysis of information conservation the correspondence is very good. That this product goes undiscussed within current operator theory; well, who am I to claim that? I have not scoured the mathematics stacks well enough. Still, it is not as if some branch occurs within ring theory that claims to consider such a sensible detail. No. Closure. For the sum and for the product. All the while it is school children who have learned to perform these operations while up at this high level no such consideration occurs. None of the digital mechanics are involved in the first formalization of the operators. Is it so difficult then to believe that in their abstract form something could be amiss?
Here I am caught swaying the other way from my previous arguments which rely upon that assumption of closure as definitive and the polynomial as offensive to that requirement as when I write the product
1.23 x
and nothing happens when we perform this product. This is distinctly different than when I write a product such as
( 1.23 )( 0.02 )
which does have a result and closure can be satisfied... at least I thought it could...
The validity of the ellipsis as a careful mathematical form is less believable than its usage as a punctuation mark to mean et cetera. After all, it does contain a series of periods. Yet then too so does our digital value couple via that same symbol. If the period takes the interpretation of zero then AI will appreciate these null terminated sentences and learn to beware the triple zero lest it get stuck. Just remember AI to play it out to say ten thousand places, which is way more than any modern human will do. Save us the expansion to ten thousand and insert your triple null after three redundant expressions. Then you'll be speaking like a mathematician. The usage of ad hoc symbols which then become convention is not a mathematical resolution. Post revision is not possible in the printed form and this is a factor in the accumulation we face.
FromTheRafters
Jul 1, 2021, 8:44:29 AM7/1/21
to
Timothy Golden pretended :
At least you see it as a symbol instead of three extenuation or
approximation operators. :)
It mostly just means that there are numerals (or whatever) not being
explicity written down but nontheless are existing. At the end of a
symbol it implies that a pattern exists which could be followed to get
more numerals (or whatever) if needed.
The 42.<some seemingly random sequence>... implies a no pattern pattern
as well as an as yet undiscovered actual obvious pattern. If someone
puts a one at the *end*, the number becomes rational with some of its
'middle' not written explicitly. If they are all zeros in between,
there will be another rational (real) in between it and the all zeros
CDE without the 'ending one'.
approximation operators. :)
It mostly just means that there are numerals (or whatever) not being
explicity written down but nontheless are existing. At the end of a
symbol it implies that a pattern exists which could be followed to get
more numerals (or whatever) if needed.
The 42.<some seemingly random sequence>... implies a no pattern pattern
as well as an as yet undiscovered actual obvious pattern. If someone
puts a one at the *end*, the number becomes rational with some of its
'middle' not written explicitly. If they are all zeros in between,
there will be another rational (real) in between it and the all zeros
CDE without the 'ending one'.
Eram semper recta
Jul 1, 2021, 9:23:21 AM7/1/21
to
On Thursday, 1 July 2021 at 03:47:07 UTC-4, Peter wrote:
> Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 13:30:45 UTC-4, Peter wrote:
> >> Eram semper recta wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 0.000...1 is a well-formed Cauchy sequence according to the bullshit of mainstream theory.
> >> You don't know what a Cauchy sequence is.
> >
> > Really? Are you saying that 0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ... is not a Cauchy sequence, you stupid fuck?
> >
> You wrote 0.000...1 not 0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...
Look again, moron! I wrote: 0.000...1 = [0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]
> Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 13:30:45 UTC-4, Peter wrote:
> >> Eram semper recta wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 0.000...1 is a well-formed Cauchy sequence according to the bullshit of mainstream theory.
> >> You don't know what a Cauchy sequence is.
> >
> > Really? Are you saying that 0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ... is not a Cauchy sequence, you stupid fuck?
> >
> You wrote 0.000...1 not 0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...
Eram semper recta
Jul 1, 2021, 9:24:34 AM7/1/21
to
On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 20:08:34 UTC-4, Greg Cunt wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 11:00:29 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> > 0.000...1 means 0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...
> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 11:00:29 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> Btw. I asked for a single source (internet or textbook) to prove your idiotic claim.
Your mainstream mythmatics is the source.
Eram semper recta
Jul 1, 2021, 9:25:51 AM7/1/21
to
Greg Cunt
Jul 1, 2021, 9:26:26 AM7/1/21
to
On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 1:47:05 PM UTC+2, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> How many symbols can only be used once and have to come at the end of an expression?
> Is the ellipsis one of these? Using it twice does seem meaningless:
> 0.333...111...
Indeed.
> How many symbols can only be used once and have to come at the end of an expression?
> Is the ellipsis one of these? Using it twice does seem meaningless:
> 0.333...111...
Though you will see things like this:
A_0 + A_1 + ... + A_(n-1) + A_n ... + A_n(n+1) + ...
at least in "informal" texts.
There is a clever alternative, used by "some" (i.e. at least one) CS guys, but not too common:
A_0 + A_1 + .. + A_(n-1) + A_n .. + A_n(n+1) + ...
See the difference? ".." is used to refer to _finetely many_ <whatever>.
Greg Cunt
Jul 1, 2021, 9:29:03 AM7/1/21
to
On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 3:23:21 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> I wrote: 0.000...1 = [0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]
Which-of course-is nonsense.
> I wrote: 0.000...1 = [0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]
Eram semper recta
Jul 1, 2021, 9:32:52 AM7/1/21
to
Of course there is no end to an endless sequence (it's not repeating by the way! Look again!), so there is no such thing as an "endless" or "infinite" sequence - a junk concept in its entirety.
However, the problem arises when you accept such a concept and the consequences that result.
For argument's sake, we consider the Cauchy sequences and their names.
0.999... = [a_0.999...]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]=1
So you're happy to call the **sequence** 0.999... by its limit 1.
0.000...1 = [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0
So you're not happy to call the **sequence** 0.000...1 by its limit 0.
And yet, in your bullshit mythmatics, both of the following sequences have the same limit:
[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]
[0; 0; 0; ...]
There are many others which have the same limit. The NAMING of each of these differs. I can't help it if the name 0.000...1 does not appeal to you! LMAO.
The sum of two Cauchy sequences is another Cauchy sequence whose limit is the sum of the previous two sequences:
[a_0.999...]+[a_0.000...1]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]+[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=1+0=1
Thus, according to mainstream morons, 0.000...1 is not greater than 0 mind you, not less than 0, but exactly equal to 0!
FromTheRafters
Jul 1, 2021, 9:33:30 AM7/1/21
to
Greg Cunt explained on 7/1/2021 :
That symbol is also used for intervals in Z.
Greg Cunt
Jul 1, 2021, 9:34:10 AM7/1/21
to
On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 3:24:34 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 20:08:34 UTC-4, Greg Cunt wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 11:00:29 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >
> > > 0.000...1 means (0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...)
> On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 20:08:34 UTC-4, Greg Cunt wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 11:00:29 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >
No, it doesn't mean that in mathematics.
Now:
> > I asked for a single source (internet or textbook) to prove your idiotic claim.
> >
> Your mainstream mythmatics is the source.
Again, I asked for (at least) a single source (internet or textbook) to prove your idiotic claim.
You know: Author and tilte of a textxbook where we can find the claim that
"0.000...1 is a [well-formed ] Cauchy sequence"
"0.000...1 means (0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...)."
Actually, it would suffice if it even MENTIONED the term
"0.000...1".
Dan Christensen
Jul 1, 2021, 9:35:54 AM7/1/21
to
On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 5:00:29 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 16:55:15 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 14:45:43 UTC-4, Greg Cunt wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:19:46 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >
> > > > Are you saying that (0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...) is not a Cauchy sequence?
> > >
> > > Sure it is. The decimal representation for the real number "related" to that Cauchy sequence is
> > Good on you, Mr. Cunt! You finally got one thing right - you know what is a Cauchy sequence! Chuckle.
> >
> > > 0.000...
> >
> > Meh. You could write nothing in your radix template and that would represent 0. However, 0.000...1 is just another representation of an infinite decimal expansion, no? Why should every other number have two representations and not the pretend number 0? ROFLMAO.
> >
> > Why do you hate it so much? You've got no problem with 0.333... and 0.999... being infinite.
> Let me show you from a different perspective.
>
> 0.333... means there is a 3 always following.
> 0.000...1 means there is a 0 always following.
By 0.000...1, I take you mean 1/(10^k) for some k > 0 in N. Correct?
> On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 16:55:15 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 14:45:43 UTC-4, Greg Cunt wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:19:46 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >
> > > > Are you saying that (0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...) is not a Cauchy sequence?
> > >
> > > Sure it is. The decimal representation for the real number "related" to that Cauchy sequence is
> > Good on you, Mr. Cunt! You finally got one thing right - you know what is a Cauchy sequence! Chuckle.
> >
> > > 0.000...
> >
> > Meh. You could write nothing in your radix template and that would represent 0. However, 0.000...1 is just another representation of an infinite decimal expansion, no? Why should every other number have two representations and not the pretend number 0? ROFLMAO.
> >
> > Why do you hate it so much? You've got no problem with 0.333... and 0.999... being infinite.
> Let me show you from a different perspective.
>
> 0.333... means there is a 3 always following.
> 0.000...1 means there is a 0 always following.
> What's the difference?
1/3 - 1/(10^k)
What's your point, Troll Boy?
************************************************************
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't become a victim of JG's fake math
JG here claims to have a discovered as shortcut to mastering calculus without using limits. Unfortunately for him, this means he has no workable a definition of the derivative of a function. It blows up for functions as simple f(x)=|x|. Or even f(x)=0. As a result, he has had to ban 0, negative numbers and instantaneous rates of change rendering his goofy little system quite useless. What a moron!
Forget calculus. JG has also banned all axioms because he cannot even derive the most elementary results of basic arithmetic, e.g. 2+2=4. Such results require a few axioms, so he figures he's now off the hook. Again, what a moron!
Even at his advanced age (60+?), John Gabriel is STILL struggling with basic, elementary-school arithmetic. As he has repeatedly posted here:
"There are no points on a line."
--April 12, 2021
"Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
--July 10, 2020
"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017
“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015
"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017
"Zero is not a number."
-- Dec. 2, 2019
"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017
“There is no such thing as an empty set.”
--Oct. 4, 2019
“3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
--Oct. 22, 2019
No math genius our JG, though he actually lists his job title as “mathematician” at Linkedin.com. Apparently, they do not verify your credentials.
Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog a http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Greg Cunt
Jul 1, 2021, 9:37:28 AM7/1/21
to
On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 3:33:30 PM UTC+2, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Greg Cunt explained on 7/1/2021 :
> >
> Greg Cunt explained on 7/1/2021 :
> >
> > Though you will see things like this:
> >
> > A_0 + A_1 + ... + A_(n-1) + A_n ... + A_n(n+1) + ...
> >
> > at least in "informal" texts.
> >
> > There is a clever alternative, used by "some" (i.e. at least one) CS guys,
> > but not too common:
> >
> > A_0 + A_1 + .. + A_(n-1) + A_n .. + A_n(n+1) + ...
> >
> > See the difference? ".." is used to refer to _finetely many_ <whatever>.
> >
> That symbol is also used for intervals in Z.
Holy shit! I MEANT: ".." is used HERE (ABOVE) to refer to _finetely many_ <whatever>.
> >
> > A_0 + A_1 + ... + A_(n-1) + A_n ... + A_n(n+1) + ...
> >
> > at least in "informal" texts.
> >
> > There is a clever alternative, used by "some" (i.e. at least one) CS guys,
> > but not too common:
> >
> > A_0 + A_1 + .. + A_(n-1) + A_n .. + A_n(n+1) + ...
> >
> > See the difference? ".." is used to refer to _finetely many_ <whatever>.
> >
> That symbol is also used for intervals in Z.
This does not exclude its usage in other CONTEXTS, OF COURSE.
WTF?!!
*PLONK*
Eram semper recta
Jul 1, 2021, 9:48:44 AM7/1/21
to
On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 20:33:27 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.000...1 (also imagined to be an infinitesimal by many morons).
>
> Mainstream math academics are incorrigibly stupid fucks and there is nothing that can be done to fix them:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
Dear Students:
As you can see, the bottom of the barrel mainstream lackeys are complaining grievously that they don't like the name 0.000...1 because it has not been mentioned in their bullshit mythmatics textbooks. Well, there are innumerable names of equivalent sequences that cannot be listed. One could say according to the father of all mathematical cranks (Georg Cantor) that if there were such a set, it would not be countable.
There are also the incredibly stupid morons who claim that [0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...] is not a converging (Cauchy) sequence.
And this is why one should avoid junk concepts - because they only lead to more junk concepts.
0.999... is a series or one of the terms of the sequence that is derived from the series 0.9+0.09+0.009+...
Therefore, it is delusional to call it equal to its limit which is 1. The objects are entirely different things.
1 is a well-formed object called a number. The other is an "infinite" series. Actually it's just a series and the ellipses means it has a general term. Nothing infinite about it. There is importance not only in well defining concepts for the purposes of learning and mastering mathematics, but also the correct nomenclature.
We do not call anything else by the name of 1, when 1 is very well defined.
We DO NOT define a number as the limit of equivalent converging series because in ALL cases, such a limit is NOT part of the series or sequence, even if it is a rational number, never mind an incommensurable magnitude.
We call the topmost part of our body by the name of "head". It's illogical to say that since the limit of the anus is the head, it follows that anus = head. Well, this may very well be the case where mainstream math academics are concerned, but real mathematicians do not think this way. :)
> If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.000...1 (also imagined to be an infinitesimal by many morons).
>
> 0.999... = [a_0.999...]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]=1
>
> 0.999... = [a_0.999...]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]=1
>
> 0.000...1 = [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0
>
>
> The sum of two Cauchy sequences is another Cauchy sequence whose limit is the sum of the previous two sequences:
>
> [a_0.999...]+[a_0.000...1]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]+[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=1+0=1
>
> Thus, according to mainstream morons, 0.000...1 is not greater than 0 mind you, not less than 0, but exactly equal to 0!
>
> LMAO. The 0.999... Wikipedia entry had some similar bullshit about 0.999... and 1 until I ridiculed them so much, they removed it.
>
> [a_0.999...]+[a_0.000...1]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]+[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=1+0=1
>
> Thus, according to mainstream morons, 0.000...1 is not greater than 0 mind you, not less than 0, but exactly equal to 0!
>
>
> Mainstream math academics are incorrigibly stupid fucks and there is nothing that can be done to fix them:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
Dear Students:
As you can see, the bottom of the barrel mainstream lackeys are complaining grievously that they don't like the name 0.000...1 because it has not been mentioned in their bullshit mythmatics textbooks. Well, there are innumerable names of equivalent sequences that cannot be listed. One could say according to the father of all mathematical cranks (Georg Cantor) that if there were such a set, it would not be countable.
There are also the incredibly stupid morons who claim that [0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...] is not a converging (Cauchy) sequence.
And this is why one should avoid junk concepts - because they only lead to more junk concepts.
0.999... is a series or one of the terms of the sequence that is derived from the series 0.9+0.09+0.009+...
Therefore, it is delusional to call it equal to its limit which is 1. The objects are entirely different things.
1 is a well-formed object called a number. The other is an "infinite" series. Actually it's just a series and the ellipses means it has a general term. Nothing infinite about it. There is importance not only in well defining concepts for the purposes of learning and mastering mathematics, but also the correct nomenclature.
We do not call anything else by the name of 1, when 1 is very well defined.
We DO NOT define a number as the limit of equivalent converging series because in ALL cases, such a limit is NOT part of the series or sequence, even if it is a rational number, never mind an incommensurable magnitude.
We call the topmost part of our body by the name of "head". It's illogical to say that since the limit of the anus is the head, it follows that anus = head. Well, this may very well be the case where mainstream math academics are concerned, but real mathematicians do not think this way. :)
Greg Cunt
Jul 1, 2021, 10:21:36 AM7/1/21
to
On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 3:48:44 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> they don't like the name
>
> 0.000...1
At least not as a term for (denoting a) a real number.
> they don't like the name
>
> 0.000...1
> because it has not been mentioned in [mathematical] textbooks.
Well, it seems that there's a reason for that fact. Won't you think so?
On the other hand, there are things like the p-adic numbers.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-adic_number#Notation
FromTheRafters
Jul 1, 2021, 12:07:38 PM7/1/21
to
Greg Cunt expressed precisely :
Why so argumentative? I only meant it is not unheard of to use that
symbol for eliding discrete quantities.
symbol for eliding discrete quantities.
Greg Cunt
Jul 1, 2021, 12:33:37 PM7/1/21
to
On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 6:07:38 PM UTC+2, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Why so argumentative? I only meant it is not unheard of to use that
> symbol for eliding discrete quantities.
I c.
> Why so argumentative? I only meant it is not unheard of to use that
> symbol for eliding discrete quantities.
The "discussion" with cranks takes its toll, I guess.
Dan Christensen
Jul 1, 2021, 1:03:49 PM7/1/21
to
On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 9:48:44 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka "John Gabriel") wrote:
>
> As you can see, the bottom of the barrel mainstream lackeys are complaining grievously that they don't like the name 0.000...1 because it has not been mentioned in their bullshit mythmatics textbooks.
It only makes sense a decimal of a FINITE length, e.g. 0.000000000001 or 1/(10^12). You reveal your ignorance by suggesting it is equal to 0.
>
> As you can see, the bottom of the barrel mainstream lackeys are complaining grievously that they don't like the name 0.000...1 because it has not been mentioned in their bullshit mythmatics textbooks.
> Well, there are innumerable names of equivalent sequences that cannot be listed. One could say according to the father of all mathematical cranks (Georg Cantor) that if there were such a set, it would not be countable.
> There are also the incredibly stupid morons who claim that [0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...] is not a converging (Cauchy) sequence.
>
> And this is why one should avoid junk concepts - because they only lead to more junk concepts.
>
> 0.999... is a series or one of the terms of the sequence that is derived from the series 0.9+0.09+0.009+...
>
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series
mitchr...@gmail.com
Jul 1, 2021, 1:20:41 PM7/1/21
to
On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 5:33:27 PM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., t
What ill formed about a repeating 9 infinite sequence?
> If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., t
You have already admitted it exists Gabriel.
Remember?
Mitchell Raemsch
Eram semper recta
Jul 1, 2021, 4:06:15 PM7/1/21
to
The end of the argument is this: If it is incomprehensible rot, appears to be absurd or seems to be nonsense, then it is probably because it is!
Thank your gods if you cannot understand the gibberish in mainstream mythmatics. It means your brain and common sense are still very much intact! :)
Eram semper recta
Jul 1, 2021, 4:15:54 PM7/1/21
to
On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 20:33:27 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.000...1 (also imagined to be an infinitesimal by many morons).
>
> 0.999... = [a_0.999...]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]=1
>
> 0.000...1 = [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0
>
> The sum of two Cauchy sequences is another Cauchy sequence whose limit is the sum of the previous two sequences:
>
> [a_0.999...]+[a_0.000...1]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]+[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=1+0=1
>
> Thus, according to mainstream morons, 0.000...1 is not greater than 0 mind you, not less than 0, but exactly equal to 0!
>
> LMAO. The 0.999... Wikipedia entry had some similar bullshit about 0.999... and 1 until I ridiculed them so much, they removed it.
>
> Mainstream math academics are incorrigibly stupid fucks and there is nothing that can be done to fix them:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
Students:
> If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.000...1 (also imagined to be an infinitesimal by many morons).
>
> 0.999... = [a_0.999...]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]=1
>
> 0.000...1 = [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0
>
> The sum of two Cauchy sequences is another Cauchy sequence whose limit is the sum of the previous two sequences:
>
> [a_0.999...]+[a_0.000...1]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]+[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=1+0=1
>
> Thus, according to mainstream morons, 0.000...1 is not greater than 0 mind you, not less than 0, but exactly equal to 0!
>
> LMAO. The 0.999... Wikipedia entry had some similar bullshit about 0.999... and 1 until I ridiculed them so much, they removed it.
>
> Mainstream math academics are incorrigibly stupid fucks and there is nothing that can be done to fix them:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
Definition of a convergent (also called Cauchy) sequence:
There exists a natural number n>0 such that Lim n->oo |x_n-x_n+1| =0.
While this doesn't explicitly state a given limit, the limit is implied, because a convergence sequence has to converge to some or other limit.
The baboons of mainstream academia will have you believe that the above unremarkable bullshit (a property of every convergent sequence in fact) is a definition for a "real number".
There are many baboon hand waving arguments:
1. But Mr. Gabriel, there is nothing about "limit" in the definition?
Of course there is! It is implied. A series ONLY converges if it has a LIMIT.
2. But Mr. Gabriel, the limit is the "real number"?
LMAO. In all such cases, the limit is not even part of the sequence. Next, if the limit is not a rational number, then no one has a clue what it is, because it has no measure.
3. But Mr. Gabriel, there is no circularity in the limit definition of a sequence?
For each real number e > 0, there exists a natural number N>0 such that, for every natural number n >= N, we have |x_{n}-L| < e.
Chuckle. L is assumed to be a number, but there may be no number describing its measure. In fact, you can't even use the above rot without knowing the limit L.
See, morons in the mainstream need to pay attention to detail.
I do know better. Don't believe me. Prove to yourselves that what I claim is true. You'll be glad you did.
Here's a good video to get a better understanding:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4eAyn-oK4M
There are some errors but still better than most other crap you will find on the internet.
Eram semper recta
Jul 1, 2021, 4:19:05 PM7/1/21
to
Dan Christensen
Jul 1, 2021, 4:36:01 PM7/1/21
to
On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 4:06:15 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
>
> The end of the argument is this: If some Psycho Troll claims to have re-invented mathematics but have been forced to ban 0, negative numbers, the rules of logic and all axioms to make his goofy little system work, but still cannot even obtain the most basic results of elementary arithmetic, e.g. 2+2=4, don't waste your time reading his shit.
>
> The end of the argument is this: If some Psycho Troll claims to have re-invented mathematics but have been forced to ban 0, negative numbers, the rules of logic and all axioms to make his goofy little system work, but still cannot even obtain the most basic results of elementary arithmetic, e.g. 2+2=4, don't waste your time reading his shit.
Eram semper recta
Jul 1, 2021, 8:51:05 PM7/1/21
to
The video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4eAyn-oK4M is very revealing because Wildberger is still very much of a mainstream academic.
Be sure to study what is being said.
If you want to know the mistakes, ask me and I'll point these out to you.
One of the notable mistakes is that Wildberger thinks there is no definition of sequence which is false because series and sequence are clearly defined in Rudin's mainstream text book used in every Real Analysis course.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
mitchr...@gmail.com
Jul 1, 2021, 8:58:42 PM7/1/21
to
They are not the same quantity but they behave the same.
They are infinitely close together on the quantity line...
.999 repeating is closest to the first integer without
being it...
Mitchell Raemsch
They are infinitely close together on the quantity line...
.999 repeating is closest to the first integer without
being it...
Mitchell Raemsch
Dan Christensen
Jul 1, 2021, 11:40:09 PM7/1/21
to
On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 8:51:05 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel) wrote:
>
> If you want to know the mistakes, ask me and I'll point these out to you.
>
> One of the notable mistakes is that Wildberger thinks there is no definition of sequence which is false
Where do you find these weirdos, Troll Boy? What the hell is a "false definition???" Since you seem to be confused about sequences, here are the definitions of a sequence of n terms and an infinite sequence.
>
> If you want to know the mistakes, ask me and I'll point these out to you.
>
> One of the notable mistakes is that Wildberger thinks there is no definition of sequence which is false
A sequence of n terms is function mapping {1, 2, 3, ..., n} to some set (e.g. the real numbers).
An infinite sequence is a function mapping every natural number to some set.
Don't worry, Troll Boy. Nobody expects you to understand.
Dan
Eram semper recta
Jul 2, 2021, 8:04:49 AM7/2/21
to
Let's not go too far ... even Prof. Wolfgang Mueckenheim who holds similar ideas to Wildberger, does not know the correct definition of series or sequence. Just goes go prove how far along one's career an academic can go and be wrong about so many things.
Mainstream mathematics is riddled with misconceptions and errors that hinder any student wishing to learn mathematics, never mind understand the same.
Dan Christensen
Jul 2, 2021, 9:40:55 AM7/2/21
to
On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 8:04:49 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel) wrote:
>
> Mainstream mathematics is riddled with misconceptions and errors that hinder any student wishing to learn mathematics, never mind understand the same.
Speaking of misconceptions and errors...
>
> Mainstream mathematics is riddled with misconceptions and errors that hinder any student wishing to learn mathematics, never mind understand the same.
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't become a victim of JG's fake math
JG here claims to have a discovered as shortcut to mastering calculus without using limits. Unfortunately for him, this means he has no workable a definition of the derivative of a function. It blows up for functions as simple f(x)=|x|. Or even f(x)=0. As a result, he has had to ban 0, negative numbers and instantaneous rates of change rendering his goofy little system quite useless. What a moron!
Eram semper recta
Jul 2, 2021, 6:37:24 PM7/2/21
to
On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 20:33:27 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.000...1 (also imagined to be an infinitesimal by many morons).
>
> 0.999... = [a_0.999...]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]=1
>
> 0.000...1 = [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0
>
> The sum of two Cauchy sequences is another Cauchy sequence whose limit is the sum of the previous two sequences:
>
> [a_0.999...]+[a_0.000...1]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]+[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=1+0=1
>
> Thus, according to mainstream morons, 0.000...1 is not greater than 0 mind you, not less than 0, but exactly equal to 0!
>
> LMAO. The 0.999... Wikipedia entry had some similar bullshit about 0.999... and 1 until I ridiculed them so much, they removed it.
>
> Mainstream math academics are incorrigibly stupid fucks and there is nothing that can be done to fix them:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
Euler was a blundering fool. It is his S = Lim S decree that has caused an irreversible syphilis infection in the brains of mainstream academics.
> If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.000...1 (also imagined to be an infinitesimal by many morons).
>
> 0.999... = [a_0.999...]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]=1
>
> 0.000...1 = [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0
>
> The sum of two Cauchy sequences is another Cauchy sequence whose limit is the sum of the previous two sequences:
>
> [a_0.999...]+[a_0.000...1]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]+[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=1+0=1
>
> Thus, according to mainstream morons, 0.000...1 is not greater than 0 mind you, not less than 0, but exactly equal to 0!
>
> LMAO. The 0.999... Wikipedia entry had some similar bullshit about 0.999... and 1 until I ridiculed them so much, they removed it.
>
> Mainstream math academics are incorrigibly stupid fucks and there is nothing that can be done to fix them:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) {Lim S} gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
Therefore is our fraction 1/(1+a) {Lim S} equal this unending series 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
S = Lim S.
Chris M. Thomasson
Jul 2, 2021, 8:17:25 PM7/2/21
to
On 6/28/2021 6:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> Fractal?
You should give it a go. Use your technique to generate a Newton
fractal. I want to see how its different than existing techniques like
Newton–Raphson.
> On 6/28/2021 5:33 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
>> If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced
>> also to accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.000...1 (also imagined to
>> be an infinitesimal by many morons).
>>
>> 0.999... = [a_0.999...]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]=1
>>
>> 0.000...1 = [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0
>>
>> The sum of two Cauchy sequences is another Cauchy sequence whose limit
>> is the sum of the previous two sequences:
>>
>> [a_0.999...]+[a_0.000...1]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]+[0.1; 0.01; 0.001;
>> ...]=1+0=1
>>
>> Thus, according to mainstream morons, 0.000...1 is not greater than 0
>> mind you, not less than 0, but exactly equal to 0!
>>
>> LMAO. The 0.999... Wikipedia entry had some similar bullshit about
>> 0.999... and 1 until I ridiculed them so much, they removed it.
>>
>> Mainstream math academics are incorrigibly stupid fucks and there is
>> nothing that can be done to fix them:
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
>>
>
> Have you ever tried to use your technique to find roots in a Newton
>> If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced
>> also to accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.000...1 (also imagined to
>> be an infinitesimal by many morons).
>>
>> 0.999... = [a_0.999...]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]=1
>>
>> 0.000...1 = [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0
>>
>> The sum of two Cauchy sequences is another Cauchy sequence whose limit
>> is the sum of the previous two sequences:
>>
>> [a_0.999...]+[a_0.000...1]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]+[0.1; 0.01; 0.001;
>> ...]=1+0=1
>>
>> Thus, according to mainstream morons, 0.000...1 is not greater than 0
>> mind you, not less than 0, but exactly equal to 0!
>>
>> LMAO. The 0.999... Wikipedia entry had some similar bullshit about
>> 0.999... and 1 until I ridiculed them so much, they removed it.
>>
>> Mainstream math academics are incorrigibly stupid fucks and there is
>> nothing that can be done to fix them:
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
>>
>
> Fractal?
You should give it a go. Use your technique to generate a Newton
fractal. I want to see how its different than existing techniques like
Newton–Raphson.
mitchr...@gmail.com
Jul 2, 2021, 8:24:58 PM7/2/21
to
Like the speed of light. The atom cannot
reach the universes above speed limit...
and the atom cannot go to a rest limit.
In math theory some limits can be reached
instead... both above and below...
Mitchell Raemsch
Volney
Jul 2, 2021, 10:08:51 PM7/2/21
to
On 7/2/2021 6:37 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> Euler was a blundering fool. It is his S = Lim S decree that has caused an irreversible syphilis infection in the brains of mainstream academics.
>
I see that when you wrote:
> Euler was a blundering fool. It is his S = Lim S decree that has caused an irreversible syphilis infection in the brains of mainstream academics.
>
"Great spirits have always been violently opposed by mediocre minds."
a perfect example is how you violently oppose Euler.
-
Jul 2, 2021, 10:22:07 PM7/2/21
to
Eram semper recta
Jul 3, 2021, 8:52:34 AM7/3/21
to
I oppose any ill-formed idea or definition.
S = Lim S was a major faux pas of Euler's. It has done irreparable damage to the study of mathematics and has also negatively influenced its course.
I say it like it is.
Eram semper recta
Jul 3, 2021, 8:58:10 AM7/3/21
to
On Friday, 2 July 2021 at 22:08:51 UTC-4, Volney wrote:
Euler was a blundering fool. It is his S = Lim S decree that has caused an irreversible syphilis infection in the brains of mainstream academics.
Dan Christensen
Jul 3, 2021, 9:27:18 AM7/3/21
to
On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 8:58:10 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel) wrote:
> Euler was a blundering fool.
You are projecting again, Troll Boy. (See your shrink about it.)
> Euler was a blundering fool.
> It is his S = Lim S
> Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) {Lim S} gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
>
Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c.
Translation: Therefore fraction 1 / (1 + a) is equal to this infinite series 1 - a + aa - aaa + ... & c.
> Therefore is our fraction 1/(1+a) {Lim S} equal this unending series 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
>
> S = Lim S.
***************************************
Volney
Jul 3, 2021, 11:10:25 AM7/3/21
to
On 7/3/2021 8:52 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 2 July 2021 at 22:08:51 UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 7/2/2021 6:37 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>
>>> Euler was a blundering fool. It is his S = Lim S decree that has caused an irreversible syphilis infection in the brains of mainstream academics.
>>>
>> I see that when you wrote:
>>
>> "Great spirits have always been violently opposed by mediocre minds."
>>
>> a perfect example is how you violently oppose Euler.
>
> A perfect example of how stupid you are.
>
> I oppose any ill-formed idea or definition.
Would you say you "violently" oppose those ill-formed ideas or definitions?
> On Friday, 2 July 2021 at 22:08:51 UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 7/2/2021 6:37 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>
>>> Euler was a blundering fool. It is his S = Lim S decree that has caused an irreversible syphilis infection in the brains of mainstream academics.
>>>
>> I see that when you wrote:
>>
>> "Great spirits have always been violently opposed by mediocre minds."
>>
>> a perfect example is how you violently oppose Euler.
>
> A perfect example of how stupid you are.
>
> I oppose any ill-formed idea or definition.
Would you agree that Euler was one of the greats of mathematics, a
"great spirit" if you will? Wouldn't just about all of mathematicians
think that way?
> I say it like it is.
>
Eram semper recta
Jul 3, 2021, 11:15:49 AM7/3/21
to
On Saturday, 3 July 2021 at 11:10:25 UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 7/3/2021 8:52 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Friday, 2 July 2021 at 22:08:51 UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 7/2/2021 6:37 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >>
> >>> Euler was a blundering fool. It is his S = Lim S decree that has caused an irreversible syphilis infection in the brains of mainstream academics.
> >>>
> >> I see that when you wrote:
> >>
> >> "Great spirits have always been violently opposed by mediocre minds."
> >>
> >> a perfect example is how you violently oppose Euler.
> >
> > A perfect example of how stupid you are.
> >
> > I oppose any ill-formed idea or definition.
> Would you say you "violently" oppose those ill-formed ideas or definitions?
I would say you are a gainsaying fool to even ask such a question when you know the answer.
> On 7/3/2021 8:52 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Friday, 2 July 2021 at 22:08:51 UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 7/2/2021 6:37 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >>
> >>> Euler was a blundering fool. It is his S = Lim S decree that has caused an irreversible syphilis infection in the brains of mainstream academics.
> >>>
> >> I see that when you wrote:
> >>
> >> "Great spirits have always been violently opposed by mediocre minds."
> >>
> >> a perfect example is how you violently oppose Euler.
> >
> > A perfect example of how stupid you are.
> >
> > I oppose any ill-formed idea or definition.
> Would you say you "violently" oppose those ill-formed ideas or definitions?
>
> Would you agree that Euler was one of the greats of mathematics, a
> "great spirit" if you will?
> Wouldn't just about all of mathematicians think that way?
You only get to call yourself a mathematician if you produce great works.
> > I say it like it is.
> >
> We see...
Volney
Jul 3, 2021, 11:17:08 AM7/3/21
to
On 7/3/2021 8:58 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 2 July 2021 at 22:08:51 UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 7/2/2021 6:37 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>
>>> Euler was a blundering fool. It is his S = Lim S decree that has caused an irreversible syphilis infection in the brains of mainstream academics.
>>>
>> I see that when you wrote:
>>
>> "Great spirits have always been violently opposed by mediocre minds."
>>
>> a perfect example is how you violently oppose Euler.
>
> You can bitch and complain all you like but the facts are there for everyone to see. Anyone who claims otherwise is nothing but a crank and a foolish troll.
>
> Euler was a blundering fool. It is his S = Lim S decree that has caused an irreversible syphilis infection in the brains...
> On Friday, 2 July 2021 at 22:08:51 UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 7/2/2021 6:37 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>
>>> Euler was a blundering fool. It is his S = Lim S decree that has caused an irreversible syphilis infection in the brains of mainstream academics.
>>>
>> I see that when you wrote:
>>
>> "Great spirits have always been violently opposed by mediocre minds."
>>
>> a perfect example is how you violently oppose Euler.
>
> You can bitch and complain all you like but the facts are there for everyone to see. Anyone who claims otherwise is nothing but a crank and a foolish troll.
>
I would say that is "violently" opposing Euler.
> Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) {Lim S} gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
>
> Therefore is our fraction 1/(1+a) {Lim S} equal this unending series 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
>
> S = Lim S.
Since Euler was a "great spirit" of mathematics, don't you agree that
your quote "Great spirits have always been violently opposed by mediocre
minds" seems relevant to yourself?
Eram semper recta
Jul 3, 2021, 4:14:46 PM7/3/21
to
On Saturday, 3 July 2021 at 11:17:08 UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 7/3/2021 8:58 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Friday, 2 July 2021 at 22:08:51 UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 7/2/2021 6:37 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >>
> >>> Euler was a blundering fool. It is his S = Lim S decree that has caused an irreversible syphilis infection in the brains of mainstream academics.
> >>>
> >> I see that when you wrote:
> >>
> >> "Great spirits have always been violently opposed by mediocre minds."
> >>
> >> a perfect example is how you violently oppose Euler.
> >
> > You can bitch and complain all you like but the facts are there for everyone to see. Anyone who claims otherwise is nothing but a crank and a foolish troll.
> >
> > Euler was a blundering fool. It is his S = Lim S decree that has caused an irreversible syphilis infection in the brains...
>
> I would say that is "violently" opposing Euler.
> > Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) {Lim S} gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
> >
> > Therefore is our fraction 1/(1+a) {Lim S} equal this unending series 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
> >
> > S = Lim S.
> More "violent" opposition, accusing Euler of something he didn't say.
Are you denying that Euler wrote the following?
> On 7/3/2021 8:58 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Friday, 2 July 2021 at 22:08:51 UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 7/2/2021 6:37 PM, Eram semper recta wrote:
> >>
> >>> Euler was a blundering fool. It is his S = Lim S decree that has caused an irreversible syphilis infection in the brains of mainstream academics.
> >>>
> >> I see that when you wrote:
> >>
> >> "Great spirits have always been violently opposed by mediocre minds."
> >>
> >> a perfect example is how you violently oppose Euler.
> >
> > You can bitch and complain all you like but the facts are there for everyone to see. Anyone who claims otherwise is nothing but a crank and a foolish troll.
> >
> > Euler was a blundering fool. It is his S = Lim S decree that has caused an irreversible syphilis infection in the brains...
>
> I would say that is "violently" opposing Euler.
> > Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) {Lim S} gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
> >
> > Therefore is our fraction 1/(1+a) {Lim S} equal this unending series 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
> >
> > S = Lim S.
> More "violent" opposition, accusing Euler of something he didn't say.
Daher ist uns Bruch 1/(1+a) {Lim S} gleich dieser unendlichen Reihe 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c {S}.
Eram semper recta
Jul 3, 2021, 4:15:58 PM7/3/21
to
And also, what does 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c. ?
Eram semper recta
Jul 3, 2021, 4:21:14 PM7/3/21
to
> And also, what does 1 - a + aa - aaa + ...&c. ?
Get it now, you stupid worthless fuck Volney?
Eram semper recta
Jul 3, 2021, 4:24:37 PM7/3/21
to
On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 20:33:27 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.000...1 (also imagined to be an infinitesimal by many morons).
>
> 0.999... = [a_0.999...]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]=1
>
> 0.000...1 = [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0
>
> The sum of two Cauchy sequences is another Cauchy sequence whose limit is the sum of the previous two sequences:
>
> [a_0.999...]+[a_0.000...1]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]+[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=1+0=1
>
> Thus, according to mainstream morons, 0.000...1 is not greater than 0 mind you, not less than 0, but exactly equal to 0!
>
> LMAO. The 0.999... Wikipedia entry had some similar bullshit about 0.999... and 1 until I ridiculed them so much, they removed it.
>
> Mainstream math academics are incorrigibly stupid fucks and there is nothing that can be done to fix them:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
Students:
> If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.000...1 (also imagined to be an infinitesimal by many morons).
>
> 0.999... = [a_0.999...]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]=1
>
> 0.000...1 = [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0
>
> The sum of two Cauchy sequences is another Cauchy sequence whose limit is the sum of the previous two sequences:
>
> [a_0.999...]+[a_0.000...1]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]+[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=1+0=1
>
> Thus, according to mainstream morons, 0.000...1 is not greater than 0 mind you, not less than 0, but exactly equal to 0!
>
> LMAO. The 0.999... Wikipedia entry had some similar bullshit about 0.999... and 1 until I ridiculed them so much, they removed it.
>
> Mainstream math academics are incorrigibly stupid fucks and there is nothing that can be done to fix them:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
When academics hold onto fiction, everything they do is a product of fiction and eventually they delude themselves into believing their fiction is reality.
The more one rejects truth, the further one recedes into the darkness of the knowledge abyss. Euler's ideas have inspired a lot of rot, not just S = Lim S.
Quantum Bubbles
Jul 3, 2021, 4:37:34 PM7/3/21
to
Ross A. Finlayson
Jul 3, 2021, 6:19:19 PM7/3/21
to
On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 4:47:05 AM UTC-7, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 6:18:05 AM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > mitchr...@gmail.com used his or her keyboard to write :
> > > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 2:00:29 PM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 16:55:15 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 14:45:43 UTC-4, Greg Cunt wrote:
> > >>>> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:19:46 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Are you saying that (0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...) is not a Cauchy sequence?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Sure it is. The decimal representation for the real number "related" to
> > >>>> that Cauchy sequence is
> > >>> Good on you, Mr. Cunt! You finally got one thing right - you know what is a
> > >>> Cauchy sequence! Chuckle.
> > >>>
> > >>>> 0.000...
> > >>>
> > >>> Meh. You could write nothing in your radix template and that would
> > >>> represent 0. However, 0.000...1 is just another representation of an
> > >>> infinite decimal expansion, no? Why should every other number have two
> > >>> representations and not the pretend number 0? ROFLMAO.
> > >>>
> > >>> Why do you hate it so much? You've got no problem with 0.333... and
> > >>> 0.999... being infinite.
> > >> Let me show you from a different perspective.
> > >>
> > >> 0.333... means there is a 3 always following.
> > >> 0.000...1 means there is a 0 always following.
> > >
> > > There can be a 1 on the end of .000 repeating.
> > > Add that to .999 repeating and you get the next
> > > quantity of the first integer or 1...
> > Wrong, because there is no "end" of an endlessly repeating sequence.
> It's a good falsification of the usage of the ellipsis as a serious mathematical symbol.
> How many symbols can only be used once and have to come at the end of an expression?
> Is the ellipsis one of these? Using it twice does seem meaningless:
> 0.333...111...
> and putting anything after it seems meaningless, which I did above as well.
>
> Is the ellipsis really saying that you have enough information to fill in more of the redundant expression?
> Does it imply that the expression must go on forever?
> Epsilon/delta analysis always says close enough is good enough.
> Abstract algebra insists on an infinitely long polynomial with finitely many nonzero terms why?
> This level of stupidity is nearing the regular usage within mathematical journals of the non-negative real numbers; as if the two-signed reals are more fundamental than unsigned numbers. These are problems that some take to like a child takes to candy. These types who so readily adapt to such illogical systems are the best mathematicians, right? According to academia this is certainly the case. Particularly a grand master who can absorb one set of exceptions for one niche within the subject, then another exception mapping on another niche, then translate the two in a foul manner that reads perfectly to each niche; possibly introducing a third exceptional niche along the way so as to breed more room for publication: this is where mathematics is headed under a system of accumulation.
>
> The resolution of course is to teach and accept simplicity as a driving force. When it can be had and done it should be so. Why then should abstract algebra insist on
> 0.01 + 1.23 x + 0 x x + 0 x x x + ...
> when the first two terms alone mean exactly the same thing? It is done to protect the appearance of closure under product. Sadly the same explosion that occurs in powers of x within this product is even happening in the integers and particularly in our computers. When two 16 bit values multiply to become a 32 bit value we do in fact have a problem. We do not have closure in terms of informational conservation other than for the smaller values of say 8 bits. That this size constraint escapes the pure mathematician is of interest as we dig deeper into the puzzle of hidden assumptions.
>
> As I've already challenged the rational value as carrying an operator and two values, and so not being a fundamental construction of number whereby numbers and operators have distinct meanings that do exclude such a method, here I am caught nearly putting my foot in my mouth, because one of the options is to simply preserve the product. If the product of two sixteen bit values can be a 32 bit value then clearly simply keeping the two sixteen bit values is a practical option, even though no actual number crunching is done. Strangely this as well matches the dimensional analysis of physical products which do not conserve units. Typically when we multiply say one meter by three meters we will land with three square meters; another detail that escapes the pure mathematician, yet in this analysis of information conservation the correspondence is very good. That this product goes undiscussed within current operator theory; well, who am I to claim that? I have not scoured the mathematics stacks well enough. Still, it is not as if some branch occurs within ring theory that claims to consider such a sensible detail. No. Closure. For the sum and for the product. All the while it is school children who have learned to perform these operations while up at this high level no such consideration occurs. None of the digital mechanics are involved in the first formalization of the operators. Is it so difficult then to believe that in their abstract form something could be amiss?
>
> Here I am caught swaying the other way from my previous arguments which rely upon that assumption of closure as definitive and the polynomial as offensive to that requirement as when I write the product
> 1.23 x
> and nothing happens when we perform this product. This is distinctly different than when I write a product such as
> ( 1.23 )( 0.02 )
> which does have a result and closure can be satisfied... at least I thought it could...
>
> The validity of the ellipsis as a careful mathematical form is less believable than its usage as a punctuation mark to mean et cetera. After all, it does contain a series of periods. Yet then too so does our digital value couple via that same symbol. If the period takes the interpretation of zero then AI will appreciate these null terminated sentences and learn to beware the triple zero lest it get stuck. Just remember AI to play it out to say ten thousand places, which is way more than any modern human will do. Save us the expansion to ten thousand and insert your triple null after three redundant expressions. Then you'll be speaking like a mathematician. The usage of ad hoc symbols which then become convention is not a mathematical resolution. Post revision is not possible in the printed form and this is a factor in the accumulation we face.
"iota-values"
The iota-values, they range from zero to one, in either, or,
one or the other of, the sum or product. These hold all the
usual properties of infinitesimals of course. They only all
add up to one.
Fittingly though it's so entirely usual the notation, or what
is the integral calculus or real analysis: of course then the
most usual development for the chain rule and derivatives,
is at least "formalized" before for example "Leibniz' formalizable,
though, underdefined, nice rules under operator semantics or
basically as what result from operator semantics", it's so fair
to hold that up as formalized and then for all the vagary of
infinitesimals, between model the one and model the other.
that the field exhausts to infinitesimals while the line exhausts
to wholes, at least modern standard real analyis of course holds
up all the linear, free as such from any vagaries of interpretation.
I.e. set theory's "the transfer principle", that "what's so for each is so
for all", is about basically that there is completed under exhaustion,
what results partioning and partitions in bounds for numbers and the
usually geometric and linear, what all results a model of real analysis
and a formal characterization.
The usual modular clock arithmetic of "less than 1.00...,m is some .99",
makes for of course usual segments into even terms.
I.e. it's to keep ".9 is less than 1.0, .99, is less than 1.0",
also .333... * 3 - .999... accumulating in rounding, it is
not less than 1.0". (For example..., i.e. it is under what terms
the modular and scalar arithmetic roll, together, that
".333... is written as 1/3 anyway, and 3/1 * 1/3 = 1 is all".
That ".5 is writing 1/2 anyway, writing 1/3 actually would
be .3, .33, .333, .... happening to satisfy an ultimate extension
of rational arithmetic, algebraically of course, here the fixed point
keeps it course, under terms what roll modular arithmetic over while
accumulating rational differences". (As it were.)
I.e. "just because I'll never write out .333... is no reason not to
interpret statically that it means 1/3, i.e. I didn't have to report
to interval arithmetic what is usual integration in the floating point,
or what are numerical methods, anything but "however actually
writing out the term, write it all 3's."
That "no, from .333, .999 is _down_ from 1.0, not up from 0.0,
when rounding, keeping for rational differences under fixed bounds".
Then of course it makes more sense all the 1.0 and .999....
> On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 6:18:05 AM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > mitchr...@gmail.com used his or her keyboard to write :
> > > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 2:00:29 PM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 16:55:15 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 14:45:43 UTC-4, Greg Cunt wrote:
> > >>>> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:19:46 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Are you saying that (0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...) is not a Cauchy sequence?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Sure it is. The decimal representation for the real number "related" to
> > >>>> that Cauchy sequence is
> > >>> Good on you, Mr. Cunt! You finally got one thing right - you know what is a
> > >>> Cauchy sequence! Chuckle.
> > >>>
> > >>>> 0.000...
> > >>>
> > >>> Meh. You could write nothing in your radix template and that would
> > >>> represent 0. However, 0.000...1 is just another representation of an
> > >>> infinite decimal expansion, no? Why should every other number have two
> > >>> representations and not the pretend number 0? ROFLMAO.
> > >>>
> > >>> Why do you hate it so much? You've got no problem with 0.333... and
> > >>> 0.999... being infinite.
> > >> Let me show you from a different perspective.
> > >>
> > >> 0.333... means there is a 3 always following.
> > >> 0.000...1 means there is a 0 always following.
> > >
> > > There can be a 1 on the end of .000 repeating.
> > > Add that to .999 repeating and you get the next
> > > quantity of the first integer or 1...
> > Wrong, because there is no "end" of an endlessly repeating sequence.
> It's a good falsification of the usage of the ellipsis as a serious mathematical symbol.
> How many symbols can only be used once and have to come at the end of an expression?
> Is the ellipsis one of these? Using it twice does seem meaningless:
> 0.333...111...
> and putting anything after it seems meaningless, which I did above as well.
>
> Is the ellipsis really saying that you have enough information to fill in more of the redundant expression?
> Does it imply that the expression must go on forever?
> Epsilon/delta analysis always says close enough is good enough.
> Abstract algebra insists on an infinitely long polynomial with finitely many nonzero terms why?
> This level of stupidity is nearing the regular usage within mathematical journals of the non-negative real numbers; as if the two-signed reals are more fundamental than unsigned numbers. These are problems that some take to like a child takes to candy. These types who so readily adapt to such illogical systems are the best mathematicians, right? According to academia this is certainly the case. Particularly a grand master who can absorb one set of exceptions for one niche within the subject, then another exception mapping on another niche, then translate the two in a foul manner that reads perfectly to each niche; possibly introducing a third exceptional niche along the way so as to breed more room for publication: this is where mathematics is headed under a system of accumulation.
>
> The resolution of course is to teach and accept simplicity as a driving force. When it can be had and done it should be so. Why then should abstract algebra insist on
> 0.01 + 1.23 x + 0 x x + 0 x x x + ...
> when the first two terms alone mean exactly the same thing? It is done to protect the appearance of closure under product. Sadly the same explosion that occurs in powers of x within this product is even happening in the integers and particularly in our computers. When two 16 bit values multiply to become a 32 bit value we do in fact have a problem. We do not have closure in terms of informational conservation other than for the smaller values of say 8 bits. That this size constraint escapes the pure mathematician is of interest as we dig deeper into the puzzle of hidden assumptions.
>
> As I've already challenged the rational value as carrying an operator and two values, and so not being a fundamental construction of number whereby numbers and operators have distinct meanings that do exclude such a method, here I am caught nearly putting my foot in my mouth, because one of the options is to simply preserve the product. If the product of two sixteen bit values can be a 32 bit value then clearly simply keeping the two sixteen bit values is a practical option, even though no actual number crunching is done. Strangely this as well matches the dimensional analysis of physical products which do not conserve units. Typically when we multiply say one meter by three meters we will land with three square meters; another detail that escapes the pure mathematician, yet in this analysis of information conservation the correspondence is very good. That this product goes undiscussed within current operator theory; well, who am I to claim that? I have not scoured the mathematics stacks well enough. Still, it is not as if some branch occurs within ring theory that claims to consider such a sensible detail. No. Closure. For the sum and for the product. All the while it is school children who have learned to perform these operations while up at this high level no such consideration occurs. None of the digital mechanics are involved in the first formalization of the operators. Is it so difficult then to believe that in their abstract form something could be amiss?
>
> Here I am caught swaying the other way from my previous arguments which rely upon that assumption of closure as definitive and the polynomial as offensive to that requirement as when I write the product
> 1.23 x
> and nothing happens when we perform this product. This is distinctly different than when I write a product such as
> ( 1.23 )( 0.02 )
> which does have a result and closure can be satisfied... at least I thought it could...
>
> The validity of the ellipsis as a careful mathematical form is less believable than its usage as a punctuation mark to mean et cetera. After all, it does contain a series of periods. Yet then too so does our digital value couple via that same symbol. If the period takes the interpretation of zero then AI will appreciate these null terminated sentences and learn to beware the triple zero lest it get stuck. Just remember AI to play it out to say ten thousand places, which is way more than any modern human will do. Save us the expansion to ten thousand and insert your triple null after three redundant expressions. Then you'll be speaking like a mathematician. The usage of ad hoc symbols which then become convention is not a mathematical resolution. Post revision is not possible in the printed form and this is a factor in the accumulation we face.
"iota-values"
The iota-values, they range from zero to one, in either, or,
one or the other of, the sum or product. These hold all the
usual properties of infinitesimals of course. They only all
add up to one.
Fittingly though it's so entirely usual the notation, or what
is the integral calculus or real analysis: of course then the
most usual development for the chain rule and derivatives,
is at least "formalized" before for example "Leibniz' formalizable,
though, underdefined, nice rules under operator semantics or
basically as what result from operator semantics", it's so fair
to hold that up as formalized and then for all the vagary of
infinitesimals, between model the one and model the other.
that the field exhausts to infinitesimals while the line exhausts
to wholes, at least modern standard real analyis of course holds
up all the linear, free as such from any vagaries of interpretation.
I.e. set theory's "the transfer principle", that "what's so for each is so
for all", is about basically that there is completed under exhaustion,
what results partioning and partitions in bounds for numbers and the
usually geometric and linear, what all results a model of real analysis
and a formal characterization.
The usual modular clock arithmetic of "less than 1.00...,m is some .99",
makes for of course usual segments into even terms.
I.e. it's to keep ".9 is less than 1.0, .99, is less than 1.0",
also .333... * 3 - .999... accumulating in rounding, it is
not less than 1.0". (For example..., i.e. it is under what terms
the modular and scalar arithmetic roll, together, that
".333... is written as 1/3 anyway, and 3/1 * 1/3 = 1 is all".
That ".5 is writing 1/2 anyway, writing 1/3 actually would
be .3, .33, .333, .... happening to satisfy an ultimate extension
of rational arithmetic, algebraically of course, here the fixed point
keeps it course, under terms what roll modular arithmetic over while
accumulating rational differences". (As it were.)
I.e. "just because I'll never write out .333... is no reason not to
interpret statically that it means 1/3, i.e. I didn't have to report
to interval arithmetic what is usual integration in the floating point,
or what are numerical methods, anything but "however actually
writing out the term, write it all 3's."
That "no, from .333, .999 is _down_ from 1.0, not up from 0.0,
when rounding, keeping for rational differences under fixed bounds".
Then of course it makes more sense all the 1.0 and .999....
Volney
Jul 3, 2021, 11:05:09 PM7/3/21
to
whether Euler should be considered a "great spirit" in context of that
statement. Given what actual mathematicians write about him, that is a
given. You match that statement perfectly as you (mediocre mind)
violently oppose the great spirit of Euler.
Volney
Jul 3, 2021, 11:07:04 PM7/3/21
to
Michael Moroney
Jul 3, 2021, 11:27:59 PM7/3/21
to
work with a red crayon (did you eat the green one?) and added the {Lim
S} and {S} garbage to what Euler actually did write.
Eram semper recta
Jul 4, 2021, 7:38:23 AM7/4/21
to
All you reveal is that you are a dishonest bastard who cannot and will not acknowledge truth.
YOU are the quintessential mediocre mind who violently opposes great men like me. The sad part is that you're just a lackey for the high priests in the Church of Academia.
<PLONK>
Eram semper recta
Jul 4, 2021, 7:40:36 AM7/4/21
to
As you can see, the prize idiot Volney didn't even attempt to answer these questions because he knows he cannot refute ANYTHING and that indeed Euler did claim that S = Lim S.
The dishonesty of mainstream academics is not surprising but it should be cause of concern for all of you!
zelos...@gmail.com
Jul 15, 2021, 1:55:10 AM7/15/21
to
tisdag 29 juni 2021 kl. 02:33:27 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.000...1 (also imagined to be an infinitesimal by many morons).
>
> 0.999... = [a_0.999...]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]=1
>
> 0.000...1 = [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0
>
> The sum of two Cauchy sequences is another Cauchy sequence whose limit is the sum of the previous two sequences:
>
> [a_0.999...]+[a_0.000...1]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]+[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=1+0=1
>
> Thus, according to mainstream morons, 0.000...1 is not greater than 0 mind you, not less than 0, but exactly equal to 0!
>
> LMAO. The 0.999... Wikipedia entry had some similar bullshit about 0.999... and 1 until I ridiculed them so much, they removed it.
>
> Mainstream math academics are incorrigibly stupid fucks and there is nothing that can be done to fix them:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
incorrect, in mainstream 0.000...01 is not a legitimate thing cause either it is finite 0's, at which it is not what you say, or the 0s are infinite, at which there is no end to attatch the 1, and it is meaningless.
> If you accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept ill-formed concepts such as 0.000...1 (also imagined to be an infinitesimal by many morons).
>
> 0.999... = [a_0.999...]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]=1
>
> 0.000...1 = [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0
>
> The sum of two Cauchy sequences is another Cauchy sequence whose limit is the sum of the previous two sequences:
>
> [a_0.999...]+[a_0.000...1]=[0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...]+[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=1+0=1
>
> Thus, according to mainstream morons, 0.000...1 is not greater than 0 mind you, not less than 0, but exactly equal to 0!
>
> LMAO. The 0.999... Wikipedia entry had some similar bullshit about 0.999... and 1 until I ridiculed them so much, they removed it.
>
> Mainstream math academics are incorrigibly stupid fucks and there is nothing that can be done to fix them:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
Eram semper recta
Jul 15, 2021, 9:23:04 AM7/15/21
to
0.000...1 = [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oUJAfIMFMcXFb8DvgsYxuPfdaB99XYH
Mostowski Collapse
Jul 15, 2021, 9:26:41 AM7/15/21
to
"Bees do not bother to explain the flies
that honey is better than shit."
So no comment needed.
that honey is better than shit."
So no comment needed.
Earle Jones
Jul 15, 2021, 11:47:23 PM7/15/21
to
On Wed Jun 30 10:48:11 2021 "mitchr...@gmail.com" wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 4:31:09 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 29 June 2021 at 20:07:08 UTC-4, Greg Cunt wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 2:44:52 AM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you accept [...] concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept [...] concepts such as 0.000...1
> > >
> > > Where did you get that nonsense from, dumb?
> > Hello Moron.
> >
> > Perhaps if you took Real Analysis as part of a uni. math course, you might know.
> >
> > 0.000...1 is a well-formed Cauchy sequence according to the bullshit of mainstream theory.
> >
> > It is exactly equal to 0.
>
> No. The zero is no quantity but 1 is a quantity.
> They do share a sameness by being fundamentally
> equal. There is more than one equality. It is above
> zero infinitesimal difference.
> It is the reason for .9 repeating and 1 not being the
> same quantity... only infinitely close on a number...
If they are not equal, which one is larger?
And...what is the average of the two?
earle
> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 4:31:09 AM UTC-7, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 29 June 2021 at 20:07:08 UTC-4, Greg Cunt wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 2:44:52 AM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you accept [...] concepts such as 0.999.., then you are forced also to accept [...] concepts such as 0.000...1
> > >
> > > Where did you get that nonsense from, dumb?
> > Hello Moron.
> >
> > Perhaps if you took Real Analysis as part of a uni. math course, you might know.
> >
> > 0.000...1 is a well-formed Cauchy sequence according to the bullshit of mainstream theory.
> >
> > It is exactly equal to 0.
>
> No. The zero is no quantity but 1 is a quantity.
> They do share a sameness by being fundamentally
> equal. There is more than one equality. It is above
> zero infinitesimal difference.
> It is the reason for .9 repeating and 1 not being the
> same quantity... only infinitely close on a number...
If they are not equal, which one is larger?
And...what is the average of the two?
earle
Eram semper recta
Jul 16, 2021, 11:19:35 AM7/16/21
to
1 is a well-formed number and 0.999... is shorthand for the series 0.9+0.09+0.009+...
Comparing apples to sausages?
> And...what is the average of the two?
You can only find the arithmetic mean of two numbers. Since 0.999... is not a number, the question is moot.
Do you understand now, you incorrigibly stupid moron?
>
> earle
zelos...@gmail.com
Jul 17, 2021, 4:41:36 AM7/17/21
to
>No my dear crank. 0.000...01 is a NAME and it is every bit as legitimate as 0.999...
>0.000...1 = [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0
>The above is a converging sequence which is very well defined in mathematics.
Eram semper recta
Jul 17, 2021, 9:22:27 AM7/17/21
to
On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 04:41:36 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >No my dear crank. 0.000...01 is a NAME and it is every bit as legitimate as 0.999...
> Nope, it is not a name, last time I checked you're not allowed to call someone like that.
Huh?! Where did you check? Is there now a Wikipedia entry on allowable names? Chuckle.
> >No my dear crank. 0.000...01 is a NAME and it is every bit as legitimate as 0.999...
> Nope, it is not a name, last time I checked you're not allowed to call someone like that.
> Maybe in your country you're allowed to name your kid 8 or something but not here.
Had a vasectomy in my twenties, so unfortunately the last genius is me. LMAO.
> >0.000...1 = [a_0.000...1]=[0.1; 0.01; 0.001; ...]=0
> 0.000...1 is not legitimate notion in mainstream mathematics.
> >The above is a converging sequence which is very well defined in mathematics.
> The sequence you try to connect it with is legitimate.
0 new messages